This invention relates generally to unmanned vehicles and systems and methods for neutralizing them with a focus on capture apparatuses employing materials with radio frequency shielding properties so as to sever communications between a target vehicle and its operator, and enable a friendly operator's physical acquisition and command and control takeover of that vehicle.
With the widespread commercial availability of unmanned vehicles (both remote controlled and autonomous), a potential for improvised threats has never been higher. Swarm technology, that uses multiple vehicles working in conjunction with each other, produces the possibility of an even larger collective threat. Unmanned vehicles for ground, sea, and air applications present an unprecedented opportunity as vessels for improvised threats that can include explosive, chemical, radiological, biological, and electronic warfare devices. In some cases, destroying vehicles carrying these payloads may aid in dispersal of the biological, chemical, or radiological agents over an area. In these instances, destruction would not be the preferred approach to neutralizing the threat.
A need exists for a comprehensive, safe, and affordable solution for countering these cheap, highly available threat-bearing unmanned vessels. It is understood amongst the policy-making community that the misuse of commercially available drones is one of the top safety issues facing a variety of locations around the country. There have been numerous attempts at various techniques for detecting drone threats and mitigating those threats, but none of them offer all-encompassing solutions. Sensitive sites may require the examination of multiple fields of technology development and a layered approach to provide adequate protection.
Currently proposed and existing systems fall short of offering layered solutions that cover the taxonomy of potential unmanned vehicle threats. They often amount to destroying the vehicles with superior firepower—something not appropriate for domestic use due to concerns over collateral damage, or capturing the vehicle with a simplistic net, which does little to mitigate the risks associated with using the vehicles for surveillance or arming them to be remotely activated threats.
Using destructive force to eliminate an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or “drone” threat can create a serious problem due to falling debris and collateral damage. On the other hand, simple interference methods do not mitigate the threat posed by drones that navigate to pre-defined waypoints. The only interference-based way to achieve the latter would be to transmit signals that interfere with GPS, however the FCC prohibits interference with approved devices as it can create other high level risks to public safety. It is thought that the best way to defeat such a threat is a cyber or electronic defense solution that could allow for control of the threat target to be acquired by a friendly operator. A comprehensive solution should allow for multiple alternative destructive and non-destructive means of disabling the unmanned vehicle, to be utilized on a case-by-case basis. The rules of engagement for solutions such as this would permit an escalation of force approach in response to the perceived intent of the unmanned vehicle.
In U.S. Pat. No. 9085362 B1, a deployable net capture apparatus is disclosed that would enable the interception of an unmanned vehicle through a deployment mechanism using a basic net to ensnare the target vehicle. This method has a few shortfalls. While the apparatus disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 9085362 B1 creates a non-destructive means for UAV mitigation, it fails to mitigate threats from a UAV that might be equipped with self destructive features that could potentially be triggered by remote control via wireless signals or autonomously based on reaching a given GPS waypoint. Such a destructive force could not only still enable the payload to be triggered, but may result in the damage or destruction of the capturing aircraft as well.
U.S. Pat. No. 9085362 B1 additionally falls short of providing a solution that could enable signal intelligence and reconnaissance on a captured UAV if it somehow fell out of the capture net. While U.S. Pat. No. 9085362 B1 is non-destructive, it fails to provide a means for cyber and electronic countermeasures which could be used to target specific systems of the vehicle with destructive effects. Finally, U.S. Pat. No. 9085362 B1 fails to address threats posed by non-airborne vehicles such as small RC cars and/or boats. While these pose less of a risk currently, a suitable solution for countering them should still be examined and considered.